PH133 Introduction to Philosophy: Moral Philosophy

Week 7: Utilitarianism and the Right

1. Recap

Consequentialism is a theory in normative ethics which evaluates actions based on their

consequences.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism which tells us to assess the value of
consequences in terms of their total utility – the right action is the action that produces the
most overall utility (for everyone affected).
Utility = happiness = balance of pleasure over pain (Mill: higher/lower pleasures)

2. Utilitarianism

“The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness
Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,
wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill, 1998, p. 55)

Key features:
• Act-centred – we focus on actions and their consequences.
• Maximisation of the good – the right (morally best) action is that which maximises
happiness (greatest balance of pleasure over pain).
• Degrees of rightness and wrongness – there is one best thing to do, and the other
options can be more or less right or wrong.
• Impartiality – it takes into account everyone affected by an action (all sentient
beings!), both short-term and long-term.

Problem: if the right action is that which maximises happiness, taking into account everyone
involved, how in the world will we ever be able to stop calculating?! The utilitarian decision-
making is too costly and possibly self-undermining.
Answer:
 Criterion of right: what makes actions right.
 Decision procedure: how we should decide what to do.

The Greatest Happiness Principle is the criterion of right, not the decision procedure!
Common-sense morality and our moral ‘rules of thumb’ can help us decide what to do. The
Principle can be consciously used when there’s conflict.

“It is a strange notion that the acknowledgement of a first principle is inconsistent with the
admission of secondary ones. To inform a traveller respecting the place of his ultimate
destination, is not to forbid the use of landmarks and directions-posts on the way.” (Mill,
1998, p. 70)

3. The Proof of the Principle of Utilitarianism

1
The Principle of Utility (PU) = the right action is that which produces the greatest balance
of happiness (pleasure) over unhappiness (pain) – happiness is the ultimate end, utility is the
foundation of morality.

How can we prove PU? What is meant by ‘proof’?

We don’t have a deductive proof….

“Questions of ends are not amenable to direct proof. Whatever can be proved to be good,
must be so by being shown to be a means to something admitted to be good without proof.
The medical art is proved to be good, by its conducing to health; but how is it possible to
prove that health is good? (…)We are not, however, to infer that its acceptance or rejection
must depend on blind impulse, or arbitrary choice. There is a larger meaning of the word
proof, in which this question is as amenable to it as any other of the disputed questions of
philosophy. (…) Considerations may be presented capable of determining the intellect
either to give or withhold its assent to the doctrine; and this is equivalent to proof.”
(Mill, 1998, 1.5, p. 52, my emphasis)

Proof = considerations that persuade us to accept the principle.

The proof:
1. Happiness is desirable.
2. The general happiness is desirable.
3. Nothing else but happiness is desirable.

Step 1: we all desire our own happiness, and isn’t that sufficient to show happiness is
desirable? Just like the fact that something can be seen is evidence that it’s visible, so the fact
that we desire happiness is evidence that happiness is desirable.
Step 2: if your happiness is desirable and my happiness is desirable etc, this shows that the
general happiness is desirable.
Step 3: all the other things that we desire, we desire either as a means to happiness (e.g. good
food, playing video games) or because they are a part of happiness (e.g. virtue).

Problems with the proof:

Problem with step 1: ‘visible’ (can be seen) is clearly different from ‘desirable’ (*ought* to
be desired, not *can* be desired). Something can be desired even if it’s not desirable, and
viceversa. (G. E. Moore)
Reply: Mill doesn’t say that ‘desirable’ means ‘can be desired’. The idea is instead that
something being desired is good evidence (the sole available evidence, Mill thinks!) that it’s
desirable.

Problem with step 2: the egoist will care about their own happiness, but reject that the
general happiness matters too.
Reply: Mill’s assumptions are important here. First, he is directing this to people who already
care about morality, not egoists (could anyone change the mind of the egoist anyway?).
Secondly, Mill is committed to the impartiality.

Problems with step 3: we do desire things other than happiness, e.g. virtue.

2
Reply: virtue is desirable in itself, but only because it’s a part of happiness. We start by
wanting virtue as a means to happiness, but then we end up associating it with pleasure (and
its lack with pain). So virtue becomes desired for its own sake.

“But if this doctrine be true, the principle of utility is proved. Whether it is so or not, must
now be left to the consideration of the thoughtful reader.” (Mill, 1998, 4.12, p. 86)

Potential merits of utilitarianism:

• Utilitarianism is simple.
• Utilitarianism is action-guiding and practical.
• Utilitarianism is impartial.
• Utilitarianism is common-sensical.
• Utilitarianism is progressive.

4. Objections to Utilitarianism

Problem 1: Justice and rights need to have a place in a moral theory. Utilitarianism
implies that we can violate them, if that maximises happiness.

Think about the following cases…

Case 1: A nearby town has seen a series of violent crimes lately. The sheriff is confronted
by the mayor, who tells her that unless she executes the one person who is the town jail at
the moment, whom the whole population believes to be the criminal, there will without
doubt be a terrible riot, in which many people will almost certainly be seriously injured or
killed. The person who is in jail has no friends or family, and the sheriff knows he is
innocent. Should the sheriff execute the innocent who is in jail? (please vote
anonymously here or use the QR code from the slides. There are 3 questions for you –
leave the survey open as you go through the slides.)

Case 2: At the nearby hospital, a doctor has 5 patients who all require a life saving
transplant (of different organs). As it happens, a lone traveler arrives at the hospital, just
for a routine check. It turns out that he is a perfect match for all 5 patients. Should the
doctor sacrifice the life of this lone traveler in order to save the lives of 5 patients? (please
vote here / use the QR code from the slides)

The issue: If we follow the utilitarian logic, it seems that the sheriff should execute the
innocent and the doctor should kill the traveller to save his 5 patients – this would
maximise the good. However, such actions would clearly be in violation of justice and of
these people’s rights. Utilitarianism doesn’t value people’s rights and doesn’t value
justice, which makes it a poor moral theory.
Utilitarian reply: this is a confusion between the criterion of right and the decision
procedure – happiness is promoted in the long-run if we follow common sense morality.
Response:
1) but if the sheriff and the doctor do these things, the utilitarian has to say it was the
right action (even if it preaches against it in theory);
2) for the utilitarian, rights and justice don’t matter in the right way.

3
Problem 2: Utilitarianism is very (too?) demanding – it requires a radical change of our
way of life.

Think about this case: on your way to work, you see a child who appears to be drowning
in a shallow pond. You could wade in and pull the child out, but of course your clothes
would be muddy and you may be late. Do you have an obligation to rescue the child?

1. If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby

sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, then we ought, morally, to do
it.
2. Suffering and death caused by lack of food, shelter, or medical care are bad.
3. Helping people in need in far away countries is in our power.
4. Physical distance doesn’t make a moral difference.
5. Hence, we ought morally to help the global poor, as long as we don’t have to sacrifice
anything of comparable moral importance.
(Singer, 1972)

Do we have a duty to give most of our possessions away to relieve the suffering of the
poor? (Please vote here / use the QR code from the slides)

The issue: Utilitarianism is very (maybe too!) demanding. It requires huge sacrifices. It
implies that we ought to radically change our lives. It implies that we’re acting wrongly
most of the time.
Utilitarian reply: the objection rests on a confusion between criterion of right and the
decisions procedure of utilitarianism. We need to not focus on the greatest happiness
principle in our everyday life!
Response: but don’t we need to use the greatest happiness principle when we see that
common sense morality has it wrong?
Utilitarian reply: “bite the bullet” – morality is very demanding, but so what? Who said
it has to be easy?
Response: utilitarianism stops being practical, as it’s not sensitive to human psychology.

Discussion tasks: please work on the discussion tasks and think of any questions that you
have about the lecture – we will discuss all of that in the live session!
• Discussion task 1: Do you agree with the utilitarian that the right action is the action
that produces the most overall utility for everyone affected? Why or why not?
• Discussion task 2: What do you take to be the strongest reasons in favour of
utilitarianism?
• Discussion task 3: Can the utilitarian successfully overcome the objections discussed
in episode 3?